Talk:PHP Standard Recommendation

Isn't a standards body by its very nature THE authoritative 3rd party source for a particular field? If I were writing about block ciphers and cited FIPS 140-2 ^[1] as to the number of rounds and Boxes, there are no other sources need, because no other sources matter in that instance. The 5 o'clock news and Sunday paper do not report on the discussions for standards bodies like the PHP group or the joint imagine expert group etc. So you kind of have to accepts what they report as authoritative in that narrow field. DrSchlagger (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

PHP, is notable due to its ubiquity. This information is to specific and technical to add to the existing PHP article as it would be cumbersome. It is also important enough not to ignore. A standards body by definition is both authoritative and notable within their area of expertise as they control how that bit of technology is implemented in industry. If the IEEE puts out a new paper redefining the channel bands for 802.11X than that publication would be notable, and authoritative even if only the IEEE had it posted. DrSchlagger (talk) 11:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

(Don't let guidelines get in the way of good editing" -- Larry M. Sanger (co founder of Wikipedia)

Agreed. I have accepted the article. LoudLizard (talk) 18:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

it's sold as a standard authority but, it's not. While it tries to popularize some standards but those standard are more imposed than suggested, and most are not even followed at full by the members. I doubt about it's notability --201.214.3.196 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)--201.214.3.196 (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)